Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is presently serving out sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under judgment and order dated 20.8.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in N.C.B. Case No. 4 of 1993 for offence under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. From certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.8.1997 produced before this Court it appears that petitioner was found guilty of the offence and awarded ten years R.I. and also awarded a fine of Rs. One lac and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. for two years. 4. Before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, as appears from order dated 4.11.2004 the petitioner made a prayer that he be released from jail custody because according to calculation of the petitioner on account of commutation or remission etc. he had served the sentence of ten years R.I. and he was ready to deposit the fine of Rs. One lac. Learned District and Sessions Judge made his own calculations of the period petitioner has spent in custody and found that he had not completed the period of ten years R.I. In respect of fine of Rs. One lac the Sessions Judge refused to issue any fresh order because petitioner already had the liberty to pay the fine of Rs. One lac or in default to undergo further R.I. for two years. The Sessions Judge further held that the petitioner had defaulted in making payment of fine. 5. On behalf of petitioner it has been made clear that he does not want this court to decide the issue whether petioner has actually served out the sentence of ten years R.I. or not. The only issue raised before this Court is that Sessions Judge has wrongly held that petitioner has defaulted in payment of fine. On the basis of judgment and order of conviction and sentence it has been submitted that no time limit was mentioned in the judgment and order for payment of fine of Rs. One lac and hence petitioner has the liberty to pay the amount of fine at any time before he serves out the period of two years provided in default of payment of fine. 6. One lac and hence petitioner has the liberty to pay the amount of fine at any time before he serves out the period of two years provided in default of payment of fine. 6. On the basis of certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the trial court, this Court finds substance in the aforesaid submission because no time limit was fixed by the court for payment of fine of Rs. One lac. In such a situation petitioner has the liberty to pay the fine at any point of time. In case he does not pay it before serving out the period of two years R.I. in default of the fine then he would get no advantage but if he pays the fine before expiry of such period of two years ofdetention he will be entitled to the benefit of payment of such fine and will not be required to serve any further sentence of R.I. on account of default in payment of fine. The aforesaid observation has been made on the basis of certified copy of the judgment and order of the trial court and hence it is made subject to verification by the concerned court. 7. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid clarification.